Sales tax: where would the money go?
In November, Ventura voters will elect City Council members, School Board members and decide on three ballot measures. Measure A would increase the local sales tax to the same rate approved last year by Oxnard and Pt. Hueneme voters. Here is the actual ballot language:"Shall Ventura adopt a one-half percent sales tax ordinance to expire automatically in four years, with all the money staying local in Ventura, to preserve essential general fund services, such as police, fire and emergency response and provide additional funding for other priorities, including street repiar, keeping Wright Library open and protecting local beaches from pollution, with a Citizen's Oversight Committee, mandatory audits and quarterly reports to the Council on how the money is spent?"
To give citizens a clear picture of exactly how those assurances would be honored, the City Council unanimously adopted a spending plan for the estimated $8.25 million that would be generated (any additional funding would be used to augment the City’s reserves as a prudent safety net in difficult economic times and to ensure future fiscal health for city operations.) Here is the spending plan that would be monitored by the Citizen's Oversight Committee.
Public Safety 40%
The Police Department (25%) would restore six officer positions cut in this year's budget. These officer
s would improve response time by 7%. PD would also bring back the Patrol Special Response Team and increase the Street Crimes Unit to work on sources of crime, including transient problems downtown. The funding would also restore cuts made to Police support staff, including communications, detective support and Crime Prevention/Neighborhood Watch. Finally, PD would continue their investment in technology to improve crime reporting and analysis. The Fire Department (15%)would ensure adequate staffing, equipment and facilities to protect the community from wildland fire, earthquakes, toxic spills and other natural and man-made disasters. The FD would restore three firefighter positions to improve response times by at least 10% by strategically re-deploy the “roving fire crew” working peak hours in areas with the lowest coverage.
Public Works Street Repair, Infrastructure Investment and Park Maintenance: 35%
Street and sidewalk repair (30%) would ensure cost-effective maintenance of our aging infrastructure. Another 5% would reverse deep cuts in park and landscape maintenance, litter control, tree trimming and park facility repairs.
Clean and Safe Beaches and Rivers: 15%
The City would identify and eliminate sources of water pollution that enter stormdrains that empty into our beaches and rivers; provide year-round testing of our beach waters to ensure health and safety; litter that enters Ventura’s coastal waterways; and ensure that new developments eliminate polluted water from entering stormdrains.
Keep Wright Library Open and Safeguard Library Services: 6%
Supplemental funding would be provided to aid our County Library system to save Wright Library from closing; improve the books and other materials at all three Ventura libraries; and improve services to increase the number of books circulated per capita by 5%.
Maintain and Build Effective Community Partnerships: 4%
Funding would restore grants that go to local non-profits whose staff and volunteers work to prevent homelessness, care for senior citizens and support cultural and educational institutions.
The spending plan gives citizens clear standards for deciding how to vote. For those fed up with taxation and "wasteful government spending," voting no is a no-brainer. For those who don't mind paying a quarter a day to keep Ventura safer and bolster quality of life services like parks and libraries, voting yes is a good bargain. In the end, the decision belongs to the majority. Either way, the City Council is determined not to spend money we don't have. That's why they made the difficult decisions that cut $11 million to produce a balanced budget this year. It is up to the citizens to decide the level of services they desire and can afford.
posted by Rick Cole at
1:09 PM
14 Comments:
I am amazed first of all that you are using a comparison with Pt Hueneme and Oxnard for your argument to increase sales tax. I recall that in the past the story was that those cities are growing too fast.
You say this sales tax if voted in with expire in four years. There has never been a "temporary" tax that was canceled in our history.
Your spell out how the money will be spent, first of all I was under the impression that if a tax increase was for a specific purpose it would take a 2/3 majority vote. Secondly you already admitted that even though you have a plan how to spend the extra money it is not "legally binding". Doesn't that leave the door to the hen house open for the fox to slip in???
Some thirty years ago I voted twice on bond issues that were touted with specific projects. Twice I voted for them but the work didn't happen till years later. Fool me once.
This item will get my no vote.
Clean out the fat.
NO,no,no! No new taxes! Why can't you politicians get it?
Better late than never for the increase in sale tax to operate the city within our means. The voters will need to be convinced that the past short comings of the city's fiscal department with investment losses (Lehamn accounts)and the lack of negotiating reasonable labor contracts and retirement will not occur again. What is the intention of the city to spend the $1.0 million bait and switch windfall received from unclaimed phone surcharge fee from the 911 mess?
I don't trust them for a second with this additional revenue. They've proven themselves not to be trustworthy in the past, so why should we, the taxpayers, give them more money to squander?
Despite these lame assurances that this money will be spent wisely, in my opinion, it most certainly won't. One can only make prudent judgments based on past performance. In this case, the City doesn't past the smell test.
Vote "No" on this sales tax measure in November! This City Council needs to be delivered a loud and clear message -- Enough is enough!!!
I appreciate that Rellis posts his name and raises legitimate points. That Oxnard and Pt. Hueneme adopted sales taxes is neither an argument for or against. It is simply a fact. I'm not sure what is meant by "the story was that those cities were growing too fast." Pt. Hueneme is landlocked and grows even more slowly than Ventura. And I think the question with Oxnard has not really been about how quickly that city has grown, but how well planned that growth has been.
The proposed sales tax doesn't have to be "cancelled." It automatically sunsets in four years.
The difference between a "special" tax and a "general" tax is pretty clear. Rather than "admit" that a spending plan is not "legally binding," I've been consistent about making clear the difference. The spending plan is just that -- a commitment on the part of the staff and the City Council to plan for how additional general tax money would be spent over the next year. Yes, a major change in the economy or a natural disaster could change things. But there are three protections built into the measure: annual audits, a Citizen Oversight Committee and quarterly public reports to the Council on how the money is spent. The biggest protection is that the voters have the say over who is elected to the Council.
This is one more example of the "new art city" behaving in a way that hurts the arts.
When I studie economics in college, the case of tax revenues in a declining economy was a classic test case- in many, if not most cases raising a tax on transactions in a declining economy actually LOWERS overall revenues because it is an economy where there is a lack of buyers- each microeconomy is essentially competing for buyers and such a tax drives revenues away to other microeconomies. Everyone else in Southern California is raising taxes - except Laguna Beach- which, correctly according to macroeconomic theory lowered theirs. Over the next couple of years, which municipality is going to see new and increased revenues - and thus tax revenues - from arts sales, pulling sales from surrounding areas, etc. Yea- Laguna Beach. Their sales tax will be over 20% lower than everyone elses. This is going to attract more of those scarce buyers in a tight ecoomy.
Eric ReeL is apparently misinformed. Laguna voters approved a half cent sales tax back increase in 2005. The City Council recently voted to terminate it (so apparently there is such a thing as a "temporary" tax.) It is not accurate to say Laguna will be 20% lower than surrounding jurisdictions. Instead, after four years, it is returning to the exact same rate as surrounding jurisdictions: 8.75%
By the way, Laguna's new "lower" rate is half a cent higher than Ventura residents and visitors currently pay because of the half cent County transportation sales tax voted in by Orange County voters. So if Ventura voters also put in a temporary four year sales tax, locals would be paying the same rate as the Laguna rate that Eric ReeLs endorses.
If we can't afford police or fire personnel, how can we pay $193,000 a year for a planner????? and if we can afford that planner why do we need a tax hike???
Anonymous -- we don't pay any planner $193,000 a year -- that's $20,000 over my salary -- before the 10% cut I took this year. Where did you get such a number?
I don't want to entirely exclude economic theory and case studies of other municipalities. However, when will local/state/national governments begin to function like a business (or even a household)? If you run out of money at home the knee-jerk reaction is generally not to run to your boss and request more money. You first look at where you're spending your dough. Once you've exhausted that search you go to luxuries (the annual trip to Tahoe, vacation home, etc.).
I am tired of governments hitting me up for more money. It is time to adjust the budget further.
It is (in my opinion) a waste of money to blow $500K/year on a library that nobody visits. If a reader wants to go to a library that bad, they can walk a few hundred yards to the west and go to the library at VC.
Additionally, what is the plan when the 4 years are up? Another ballot proposal..."4 more years"? Or is there hope/anticipation/optimism that revenues will increase to fill the gap in the future? It is extremely rare to see a government not blow it's entire wad on an annual basis and I can't see Ventura finding new ways to spend any increases in it's tax base.
...I'll stop now.
Well, Well, Well, if we use the criteria of sampling that your latest consultants used it would appear by the comments on this blog that the Tax Increase, Proposition "A" is slated for doom.
I agree wholeheartedly with Rellis's comment. This thing is going down big-time. There is no appetite for tax increases in the City right now. People are tired of getting slugged with new taxes every time they turn around (by the State, by the feds, and now by the City).
Besides, the City didn't engender any good will with the public with the notorious 911 tax that they ended up rescinding (with their tails between their legs). Even worse though, they received a $400,000 windfall (i.e., theft) from the public by not returning a significant amount of the money that was collected via this tax. Absolutely shameful!
I never cease to be amazed by the choice of anonymity of those who have complaints.
I think that it is unfortunate that some would lump all politicians and public servants together, as bad. This is simply not my experience.
How is it that some of you that post, talk as though to tax, or not to tax is related to what you want? Isn't it up to the voters, and hopefully related to the common good; not what you personally want?
I appreciate Mr. Cole's work and clear thinking.
Post a Comment
<< Home